He is not saying “I want to be treated like an adult”. He’s saying “your position contains a fatal logical flaw”. Which you did not address, and instead proceeded to get your panties all twisted in a bunch.
Marxism describes religion as a reaction to oppression hence Marxist in non-marxist system tends to support religious minorities. However, once marxists system is implemented, religious people become a counter point to utopia because their very existence proves that oppression still exists.
This means the number of atheists in a post marxist society actually becomes a success metric. This should explain all 3 mentioned wiki links.
I don’t have to. I want to play edgy time. Why can he say “sky daddies” but I can’t say “the cambodian genocide had a horrifying atheism motivated aspect?”
![Gorillaz Based of Course [Rule]](https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/5a959005-1f02-40b2-b5f2-f55691ef753c.png){kind=link}
He is not saying “I want to be treated like an adult”. He’s saying “your position contains a fatal logical flaw”. Which you did not address, and instead proceeded to get your panties all twisted in a bunch.
Soooooo, who’s the childish one again?
Marxism describes religion as a reaction to oppression hence Marxist in non-marxist system tends to support religious minorities. However, once marxists system is implemented, religious people become a counter point to utopia because their very existence proves that oppression still exists.
This means the number of atheists in a post marxist society actually becomes a success metric. This should explain all 3 mentioned wiki links.
the one saying “sky daddies”
You still have not addressed his actual point. You are just whining about him not using your preferred nomenclature.
I don’t have to. I want to play edgy time. Why can he say “sky daddies” but I can’t say “the cambodian genocide had a horrifying atheism motivated aspect?”
You can. He says that it’s not relevant. Now you tell him why he’s wrong. You don’t whine because he’s disrespectful.
he’s wrong because he’s edgy, and the discussion on his points have been done for centuries by better people than me.
You know, you can just say “I refuse to engage with your obvious rage bait”.
But he’s not wrong because he’s edgy. He’s wrong because he’s wrong. Or not. As the case might be.
but I don’t want to not engage with obvious rage bait.
I want to humiliate rage baiters
You’re only humiliating yourself.